Diet advice changes so fast it’s almost a full-time job to keep up with it. Avoid cholesterol; no, avoid saturated fats; no, avoid trans-fats. Avocados are bad; no, avocados are good. Wheat germ is passé; now omega 3s are de rigueur. The supermarket overwhelms us with an embarras de richesses, a confusing superabundance of choices from “organic” to low-sodium. How can we decide what to have for dinner?

In the brief time that Science-Based Medicine has existed, I’ve become known as the vaccine blogger of the group. True, Steve Novella sometimes posts about antivaccine pseudoscience and fear-mongering (unlike me, he’s even been directly attacked by David Kirby) and both Mark Crislip and Harriet Hall have each done one post about it, but, at least this far, hands down I’ve done more posts about the misinformation, pseudoscience, and outright quackery spread by antivaccine activists such as J. B. Handley’s Generation Rescue and his recently recruited empty-headed celebrity spokespersonJenny McCarthy, not to mention a number of others who promote the resurgence of infectious disease by sowing doubts about the safety of the most effective weapon the mind of humans have ever devised against it. Truly, few uses of “alternative” medicine bother me as much as the antivaccine orientation of so much of the movement supporting it, a movement that has also led to all manner of “biomedical” treatments (quackery).

What you might not know is how I developed my interest in this particular area of dangerous pseudoscience. After all, I’m a cancer surgeon and an NIH-funded cancer investigator, not a pediatrician, immunologist, or neurologist. As hard as it is for me to believe, given that it seems today that I’ve always been refuting this nonsense, I only first discovered the antivaccine movement about three and a half years ago. True, I had been a regular on certain Usenet newsgroups for at least four or five years before that and had encountered antivaccinationists there before, but my contact with them online had been sporadic, and they seemed “out there” even in comparison to the usual run-of-the-mill alt-med maven. But then in the spring of 2005 I started to notice in a big way the cadre of pseudoscientists, parents of autistic children, and others who pushed the myth that thimerosal-containing vaccines or vaccines in general cause autism. Oddly enough, it started out with the Huffington Post, of all places. In May 2005, Arianna Huffington started a large group blog, chock full of famous pundits and celebrities writing blog posts. Within three weeks of its formation, I had noticed a very disturbing aspect of the Huffington Post, and that was that it appeared to be providing a major soapbox for antivaccinationists, including a post by Janet Grilo of Cure Autism Now, twoposts by that propagandist of antivaccinationists David Kirby (with whom our fearless leader Steve Novella has managed to get into a bit of a tussle), and posts by that Santa Monica pediatrician to the children of the stars, Dr. Jay Gordon, a man who assiduously denies being “antivaccine” but parrots the most blatantly obvious talking points of the antivaccine movement and is currently best known as being the pediatrician for Jenny McCarthy’s son Evan. At the very least, Dr. Gordon is an apologist for the antivaccination movement, and he has become one of the “go-to” guys for the media looking for physicians who are “vaccine skeptics,” making numerous radio and TV appearances to promote his “skepticism.”

The next phase of my “awakening” to just how pervasive antivaccine fearmongering and pseudoscience were came when Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. wrote an incredibly dishonest and deceptive screed that got wide coverage in the summer of 2005. His article, called, charmingly enough, Deadly Immunity was a rehash of all the misinformation about thimerosal in vaccines and autism wrapped up with in a bow of conspiracy-mongering worthy of a 9/11 Truther with a penchant for quote-mining that would make a creationist blush. The article appeared simultaneously on Salon.com (which normally doesn’t publish such nonsense) and Rolling Stone, a magazine that really should stay away from science and stick to covering entertainment and politics. It was followed by a media blitz by RFK Jr. and antivaccine propagandist David Kirby, best known for his credulous treatment of the thimerosal/autism link, Evidence of Harm: Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic: A Medical Controversy, published a few months before RFK, Jr.’s article, and his subsequent activities posting antivaccine nonsense on Huffington Post and, more recently, on the quackery-promoting antivaccine blog Age of Autism.

I’ve alluded to the fact before that I have quite a bit of blogging experience under another guise. Indeed, I’m sure many of the readers here know what that guise is. Suffice it to say that at the time I prefaced a post about RFK, Jr.’s article by saying that Salon.com had “flushed its credibility down the toilet” and referred to the article itself as the “the biggest, steamingest, drippiest turd Salon.com has ever published.” Clearly (and fortunately), I use much less–shall we say?–colorful language on this blog, but I bring this up so that the reader knows where I am coming from. Indeed, since that time in the summer of 2005, I’ve been wondering when scientists, public health officials, and physicians supporting science-based medicine would finally wake up and start to push back against this tide of antivaccine nonsense, which is starting to result in the resurgence of measles and other vaccine-preventable diseases. This year, I’ve seen some hopeful signs, including organizations like Voices for Vaccines and Every Child By Two, as well as other signs of push-back against the antivaccine movement, which, I hate to admit, has been clearly winning the P.R. war. What there hasn’t been yet is a book written from a scientific viewpoint that directly addresses the history of the recent resurgence of the antivaccine movement and refutes the pseudoscience that it promotes.

A few days ago, while gathering information for last week’s post about intravenous hydrogen peroxide, I noticed this:

ACAM Supports NIH Decision to Suspend TACT Trial

September 3, 2008, Laguna Hills, Calif. — The American College for Advancement in Medicine, ACAM today announced its support for the National Institute for Health’s (NIH) decision to suspend patient accrual of the Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT) Trial until allegations of impropriety can be proven false. ACAM believes that the TACT trial represents a important milestone in assessing the role of chelation therapy in modern healthcare and respects the decision of the NIH.

ACAM continue to work with Dr Tony Lamas to answer the unfounded allegations of impropriety.

“We believe that the Office of Human Research Protection (OHRP) will find that the allegations are of a political nature. To serve the best interests of participants enrolled in the TACT trial and all patients and their physicians who seek answers about chelation therapy, we call for a swift end to the moratorium and resumption of the trial,” said Jeanne Drisko, MD, President of ACAM.

I alerted a few others, including Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch, who queried the news room of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI: the joint sponsor, along with the NCCAM, of the trial) and got this reply:

The investigators and institutions performing the Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT), in conjunction with their Institutional Review Boards, have temporarily and voluntarily suspended enrollment of new participants in the study. NIH has not issued any announcement or press release about this action. To contact the Office for Human Research Protections’ (OHRP) press office, call Pat El-Hinnawy, (202) 253-0458.

Anecdotal evidence. An oxymoron? Or a valid approach to understanding data?

The problem is there are different kinds of anecdotes, used for different purposes, but the purpose of anecdotes is rarely if ever defined explicitly. Anecdotes are used for one purpose by one speaker/writer but interpreted in a different context by the listener/reader. People love anecdotes, especially if the anecdotes are about them or their beliefs. Anecdotes are how patients transmit the particulars of their disease to their health care providers. The medical history, as taken from the patient, is an extended anecdote, from which the particulars of the disease have to be extracted. Anecdotes are how physicians explain disease and treatments. Anecdotes are a tool with which teachers instruct their students. Anecdotes are how CAM proponents validate their particular system, and how skeptics invalidate them.

Anecdotes are useful tools for presenting yourself and your ideas. The convention season is over and is was striking how the candidates attempted to win over voters with anecdotes about their lives rather than the particulars of their policies. Using variations of ‘anecdote’ as a pubmed search term yields little of substance. The predominant theme on medline is to contrast anecdotes with evidence, always to the detriment of anecdotes. Anecdotes have power to influence far greater than evidence.

On The Skeptics Guide to the Universe #165 there was an interview with Ben Goldacre, who noted that there was the popular misbelief that the MMR vaccine was a cause of autism. The belief waned not when the voluminous data on the safety and lack of association with autism and the MMR was released, but when it was discovered that the primary proponent of the MMR/autism link received large sums of money to testify about that MMR/autism link. It was the anecdote about his conflict of interest that invalidated the idea, not the science.

In yet another round of science by press release, a particularly unimpressive acupuncture study is making the rounds of the major news outlets proclaiming that acupuncture works. I guess that is a sort-of answer to my title question – why are so many scientifically worthless acupuncture studies being done?

Let’s take a look at this particular study to see why it is so weak. All I have to go on is the press release, since the study is not published. It was presented at a scientific meeting – which is legitimate, I just don’t have access to it. (The bar for publication in a peer-reviewed journal is much higher than presentation at a meeting, and there may, in fact, be changes to the text prior to publication.) But we can still say a great deal about this study from the information provided.

Note:The reason that I am posting today rather than my usual Monday slot is because the article I discuss here was embargoed until last night. Consequently, I asked Harriet if she would trade days with me this week, and she was kind enough to do so.

One thing that science relies on almost absolutely is transparency. Because one of the most important aspects of science is the testing of new results by other investigators to see if they hold up, the diligent recording of scientific results is critical, but even more important is the publication of results. Indeed, the most important peer review is not the peer review that occurs before publication. After all, that peer review usually consists of an editor and anywhere from one to four peer reviewers on average. Most articles that I have published were reviewed by two or three reviewers. No, the most important peer review is what occurs after a scientist’s results are published. Then, all interested scientists in the field who read the article can look for any weakness in methodology, data analysis, or interpretations. They can also attempt to replicate it, usually as a prelude to trying to build on it.

Arguably nowhere is this transparency quite as critical as in the world of clinical trials. The reason is that medications are approved on the basis of these trials; physicians choose treatments; and different medications become accepted as the standard of care. Physicians rely on these trials, as do regulatory bodies. Moreover, there is also the issue of publication bias. It is known that “positive” trials, trials in which the study medication or treatment is found to be either efficacious compared to a placebo or more efficacious than the older drug or treatment it is to replace, are more likely to be published. That is why, more and more, steps are being taken to assure that all clinical trial results are made publicly available. For example, federal law requires that all federally-funded clinical trials be registered at ClinicalTrials.gov at their inception, and peer-reviewed journals will not publish the results of a clinical trial if it hasn’t been registered there. Also, beginning September 27, 2008, the US Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA) will require that clinical trials results be made publicly available on the Internet through an expanded “registry and results data bank,” described thusly. Under FDAAA, enrollment and outcomes data from trials of drugs, biologics, and devices (excluding phase I trials) must appear in an open repository associated with the trial’s registration, generally within a year of the trial’s completion, whether or not these results have been published. Although there are some practical issues over this law, for example determining how much information can be disseminated this way without constituting prior publication, which is normally a reason to disqualify a manuscript from publication.(more…)

I’m frequently asked, “Is what that ad says really true?” Three recent inquiries have been about products advertised in Scientific American. An ad may acquire a certain cachet by appearing in a prestigious science magazine, but that doesn’t mean much. Scientific American’s editorial standards apparently don’t extend to its advertising department. I remain skeptical about the claims for all three of these: Juvenon, the StressEraser, and the ROM exercise machine. I discussed the ROM machine last week.

Juvenon

This product is advertised as “The Supplement That Can Slow Down the Clock on Aging Cells.” Andrew Weil also sells this on his website. It supposedly helps keep your mitochondria from decaying, promotes brain cell function, sustains energy levels, and is a powerful antioxidant.

The first time I noticed an ad for Juvenon in Scientific American I wrote the following letter to the editor: (more…)

I had intended today’s posting to be a summary of a real case faced by a state medical board. It is a case of licensed physicians treating patients with a substandard, dangerous, and unequivocally illegal method. My intent was to use it as an illustration of how difficult it can be for medical boards to discipline such practitioners, even when the treatment involved is obviously, blatantly bad. Only yesterday, I was informed by the pertinent board that because this case has yet to be resolved, I may not discuss it. So be it: I’ll save the specifics for another time. Instead I’ll offer a general example of a dubious treatment as a prelude to Part 2 of this series,† which will attempt to discover some of the reasons that medical boards might, under such circumstances, be ineffectual.

Intravenous Hydrogen Peroxide

Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) is a highly reactive compound that is caustic to living tissues. It spontaneously decomposes to water and oxygen, a reaction that is greatly accelerated in the presence of peroxidases (mainly catalase), which are ubiquitous in human blood and tissues. It has been used as a disinfectant for superficial skin wounds and in the mouth, and also for fabric and medical equipment. It has been used as a bleaching agent for teeth and hair. When used as an irrigant in surgical fields, in other large wounds, or consumed in any form (including intravenously), however, it has resulted in predictable, catastrophic complications: arterial and venous gas emboli, emphysema, respiratory arrest, strokes, multiple cerebral infarcts, seizures, colonic ulcers, intestinal gangrene, acute hemolytic crises, shock, cardiac arrest, and death.[1-7]

Anyone attempting a systematic review of the medical literature on sectarian medical systems (“CAM”) starts with a serious disability; the literature itself. The National Library of Medicine still lists abstracts for over 30 “alternative medicine” journals, but more concerning, is my estimate that half or more of the articles on sectarian systems published in standard medical journals range from the erroneous to the fraudulent. If one is conscientious, honest, and wants to produce a realistic review of sectarian systems that reflects reality, one cannot do it.

The problem spills over and beyond boundaries of medical research and practice. Often neglected is a massive literature of the allied professions – nursing, psychology, social work, and others. There are data bases for these professions as well (CINAL, EMBASE, CISCOM, Psychlit.) So not only do physicians and patients deal with a disabled medical literature, other professions also face the same problem in theirs. Little wonder that the “CAM” – “Integrative” movement has been tolerated instead of rejected in the community of health and allied health.

The editor of Research on Social Work Practice sent me a copy of a review of intercessory prayer published in his journal (Hodge DR, A Systematic Review of the Empirical Literature on Intercessory Prayer. Res Soc Work Pract 2007;17(2):174-186.) Intercessory prayer is the prayer offered by others for an ill person, usually not in the person‘s presence. Prayer is usually performed on a regular daily schedule by groups of prayers of one or more religious denominations.

CHICAGO (AP) — A government agency has dropped plans for a study of a controversial treatment for autism that critics had called an unethical experiment on children.

The National Institute of Mental Health said in a statement Wednesday that the study of the treatment — called chelation — has been abandoned. The agency decided the money would be better used testing other potential therapies for autism and related disorders, the statement said.

The study had been on hold because of safety concerns after another study published last year linked a drug used in the treatment to lasting brain problems in rats.Chelation (kee-LAY’-shun) removes heavy metals from the body and is used to treat lead poisoning. Its use as an autism treatment is based on the fringe theory that mercury in vaccines triggers autism — a theory never proved and rejected by mainstream science. Mercury hasn’t been in childhood vaccines since 2001, except for certain flu shots.

But many parents of autistic children are believers in the treatment, and NIMH agreed to test it.The researchers had proposed recruiting 120 autistic children ages 4 to 10 and giving half a chelation drug and the other half a dummy pill. The 12-week test would measure before-and-after blood mercury levels and autism symptoms.The study outline said that failing to find a difference between the two groups would counteract “anecdotal reports and widespread belief” that chelation works.